9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar against M/s Gayatri Projects Ltd (appellant-assessee). Revenue is in appeal against the portion of demand dropped by the adjudicating authority and the appellant - assessee is in appeal against the amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 2. The appellant M/s Gayatri Projects Ltd. have been awarded the work of "Expansion of Ash Pond and "2nd Expansion of Red Mud Pond" by M/s National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO). A show cause notice was issued to the appellant-assessee by the department demanding service tax to the extent of Rs. 1,27,90,928/- under commercial or industrial construction service (CICS) for the period from 10.9.2004 to 31.3.2008 by invoking the extende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while quantifying the service tax demand, which itself proves the incidence of the transfer of property in the goods has taken place while executing the contract. It was also further submitted that in view of Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), wherein it has held that provisions of Section 65(105)9g), 65(105(zzd), 65(105)(zzh), 65(105)(zzq) and 65(105(zzzh) were not sufficient for levy of service tax on indivisible composite work contract prior to 1.6.2007. The said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed in a catena of cases, such as: (i) Balaji Builders Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2017 (6) GSTL 59 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) Ircon International Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2017 (5) GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STR 50 Bang.; (iv) CC Vs. Hotline CPT Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 313 (Tri.-Del.). . The ld. Advocate also submitted that the subject work was carried out by the appellant in relation to construction of dam is also outside the scope of service tax under CICS as per the definition of said service under Section 65(25b) of the Act. On the point of limitation, it was stated that as the service tax is not payable, there is no question of time bar. The Commissioner has given detailed finding as to how the extended period cannot be invoked in the case at hand and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 5. The ld. DR has reiterated the grounds contained in the appeal memorandum and stated that the impugned order passed by the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
